JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-Navratanmal had filed a complaint against non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 and three others viz. Dr. Tejnarain Sharma, Krishna Soni Azad and Sharma Press, Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under sections 500, 501, 502/34 and 120B Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh with the allegation that defamatory matter against the petitioner was printed and published by Dr. Tejnarain Sharma, Owner Chief Editor and printer at Shri Ganganagar in a daily newspaper known as Dainik Tej at Sharma Press. It contained the news that the daughter in law has conceived from the father-in-law meaning thereby Navratanmal and his daughter-in-law Smt. Chanda Devi non-petitioner No. 2. It was further alleged that the other non-petitioners had given publicity to the news and thereby caused mental agony to the petitioner and lowered his prestige in the society. 2. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant and opined that prima facie case is made out only against Dr. Tejnarain Sharma, Krishna Soni Azad and Sharma Press and he, therefore, took cognizance only against them i.e. for the offences under sections 500 and 502 Indian Penal Code against Dr. Tejnarain Sharma, under section 500 Indian Penal Code against Krishna Soni Azad and under section 501 Indian Penal Code against Sharma Press, Hanumangarh. 3. Being dissatisfied by the dismissal of the complaint against the non petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, petitioner Navratanmal has filed this revision petition in this Court. 4. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. N.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Secs. 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code have been overlooked by the learned Magistrate because he has neither examined the witnesses whom the complainant wanted to be examined nor had he conducted any inquiry or got the matter investigated by the Police as envisaged by Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel stressed that an order of dismissal of complaint under section 203 Criminal Procedure Code can be passed only after proceeding under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. To substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Badrilal v. Kanheylal and another, A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad page 304. 5. Sec. 200 Criminal Procedure Code makes it obligatory on the Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence to examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any. To substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Badrilal v. Kanheylal and another, A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad page 304. 5. Sec. 200 Criminal Procedure Code makes it obligatory on the Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence to examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any. The clear intention by these words is that the Magistrate need not give an opportunity to the complainant to bring more witnesses. All that is expected of him is to examine the complainant and the witnesses if any present at the time. 6. In the present case, order sheet dated 8-11-1979 shows that the complainant and his seven witnesses were examined by the Magistrate on that date and it was observed that the requirement of Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code is fulfilled. It has been further noted that the counsel for the complainant wanted to produce further evidence. This clearly shows that the Magistrate did not refuse to examine the witnesses present, but refused to give an opportunity to the complainant to produce more witnesses subsequently. 7. This being the position it cannot be said that the Magistrate has failed to comply with the directions given in Sec 200 Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Coming to the provisions of Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code it may be observed that the provision is enabling and not obligatory. The words if he thinks fit appearing in Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code clearly indicate that the Magistrate may postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit It is for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding further. In case the Magistrate is satisfied by the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code about there being a priam facie case, there is no obligation upon him to proceed under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. 9. Mr. In case the Magistrate is satisfied by the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code about there being a priam facie case, there is no obligation upon him to proceed under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. 9. Mr. Singhvi contended that Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code envisages the consideration of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and if there would not have been any necessity for inquiry or investigation under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code legislature would not have worded Section 203 like that. 10. Section 203 reads as under ; "If, after considering the statements on oath, if any, of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in entry such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing". 11. The words if any appearing at two places show that there is no hurdle for the Magistrate in proceeding under this Section without examination of the complainant and his witnesses and also making inquiry or investigation under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. There may be cases in which even from the allegation in the complaint, a clear cut prima facie case is made out and there may not be any necessity even of examining the complainant in order to issue process against the accused. It is for that reason that the words if any inserted at these two places are sufficient to suggest that legislature did not intend that it should be obligatory upon the Magistrate to proceed under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code before proceeding under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code. 12. In two case referred to by Mr. Singhvi the matter stood on an altogether different footing. The principle enunciated in that case was that where an inquiry is ordered or is contemplated under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and the complainant states in his complaint that he has witnesses to prove that case, he should be given an opportunity of proving his case before the complaint is dismissed on the basis of such inquiry. The principle enunciated in that case was that where an inquiry is ordered or is contemplated under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and the complainant states in his complaint that he has witnesses to prove that case, he should be given an opportunity of proving his case before the complaint is dismissed on the basis of such inquiry. It was further ordered that if the enquiry ordered or contemplated under Section 202 is insufficient, the order of dismissal of the complaint cannot be supported and a further enquiry must be directed The emphasis of Mr. Singhvi is on the words contemplated under section 202 appearing in that authority. It is pertinent to note that these words were used by his Lordship in view of the fact that in that case the Magistrate had recorded the statements of the complainant on oath on the reverse of the complaint and made only a pretence of an enquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code mentioning in the order-sheet that the complainant had no evidence with him to prove his contentions. It was therefore, held that obviously the Magistrate had in contemplation that an enquiry under section 202 is envisaged in the case and the order passed by the Magistrate was quashed and further enquiry and proceeding in the matter in accordance with law was directed. 13. In the case on hand, there is no material to indicate that the Magistrate had contemplated any inquiry under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no irregularity in the order on this count. 14. The next argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that what is required at the initial stage is the forming of an opinion whether a prima facie case is made out or not. At this stage the Court is only to ascertain whether on the material before it, there is a prima facie case to proceed against the accused or not and it is not required to go into the details and come to the conclusion whether all these allegations are sufficient to convict the accused or not. He has based his argument the principle enunciated in the case of Nemichand and others v. The State of Karnatka and another, 1980 Cri. L.J. 751. 15. He has based his argument the principle enunciated in the case of Nemichand and others v. The State of Karnatka and another, 1980 Cri. L.J. 751. 15. Learned counsel for the non petitioner does not dispute this petition of law but his argument is that from the evidence on record no prima facie case was made out and therefore, there was full justification for dismissal of the complaint against non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 6. 16. I carefully examined the record of the case in order to find out whether there was any justification in dismissal of the complaint or not. The order of the learned Magistrate clearly shows that he has properly appreciated the evidence before him and has given cogent reasons for his opinion that only against three accused, a prima facie case was made out. I also do not find any error in his reluctance to consider the affidavits of ten persons filed before the founder in his absence, because he has opined that those affidavits did not mention anything also but the fact of the petitioner being defamed by the publication. It has also been observed by his that no provision permission of the Court was obtained before filing those affidavits and they were filed after the Magistrate had complied with the provisions of Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Magistrate did not take cognisance against Smt. Chanda Devi for the reason that there was no evidence about her spreading the news and against other persons on the ground that the complainant himself averred that he had suspicion on those persons about spreading defamatory news against him. On the perusal of the statements of the witnesses and the documents of the record this opinion appear to be based on sound reasoning and therefore, does not warranty any interference. 17. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition has no merits and is, therefore, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******